Latino in the Ivy League, Vol. 2

Written by Rolando Rodriguez | July 27th, 2009 | Comments (0)

  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • NewsVine
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
Ruben Navarratte (left) and Rudy Ruiz (right) were classmates at Harvard College and have equally interesting perspectives on the life of a Latino in the Ivy League.

Ruben Navarrette (left) and Rudy Ruiz (right) were classmates at Harvard College and have equally interesting perspectives on the life of a Latino in the Ivy League.

In a recent commentary on CNN.com, Ruben Navarrette Jr., a nationally syndicated columnist and a regular contributor to CNN , reflected on his experience as a Latino in the Ivy League. The riveting piece mirrored his experiences in the 1980’s as one of only 35 Mexican Americans in a freshman Harvard class of 1600, to those of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s time at Yale in the 1970s. The column tears a page from Navarrette’s critically acclaimed book “A Darker Shade of Crimson: Odyssey of a Harvard Chicano,” which reflects heavily on his experience as a minority in arguably the nation’s most prestigious academic institution.

RedBrownandBlue.com senior writer and editor, Rolando Rodriguez, sits down with Navarrette’s Harvard classmate, Rudy Ruiz, to get a different take. A published author and multicultural advocate, Ruiz is an acclaimed multicultural communications entrepreneur. He founded RedBrownandBlue.com, as well as Interlex , one of the nation’s leading advocacy marketing agencies ranked by Ad Age as one of the Top US Agencies across all disciplines. Prior to that, Ruiz earned his BA in Government at Harvard College and his Masters in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School.

RedBrownandBlue.com: Rudy, in Ruben’s column, he writes about the culture shock and surprises he faced entering Harvard, writing, “Once you arrive on campus, you expect to find the place flooded with Latinos, since you’ve been told that they’re admitted wholesale and that white males are discriminated against to make room. So imagine the shock when you see plenty of white males and only a relative handful of people who look like you.” You both come from “Valleys.” Ruben grew up in San Joaquin Valley, CA, where in the 60s and 70s, ethnic and economic friction between Mexican-Americans and the valley’s predominantly white farming elite manifested itself when the United Farm Workers, led by César Chávez, went on numerous strikes and called for boycotts of table grapes. You’re from the Rio Grande Valley, where agriculture is equally vital and the area wasn’t at all ignorant or non-participatory in the advancement of farm worker rights. But growing up in an area that was overwhelmingly majority Hispanic, racial friction wasn’t as prevalent there as in San Joaquin; thus, it’s safe to make the assumption that you didn’t fall prey to the self-identity issues many Hispanics in more segregated, racially-hostile areas of the country might develop. Yet, it seems your experiences entering Harvard drew some similarities, peppered with some obvious differences.

Ruiz: Actually, when I first got there, it was the first time I became truly aware of the fact I was a member of a minority group as I had grown up in a place where Hispanics were the majority. After a couple of years there, I came to feel I was losing a grip on my Spanish-language abilities and I also realized I was feeling disconnected from my culture. My response to that was to delve deeply into taking courses in Latin American literature, intellectual history and culture. I developed great relationships within those departments at school with professors and graduate students, and it was extremely rewarding intellectually, culturally and personally. Harvard for me was a fantastic, awesome experience, one that opens lots of doors and gives you glimpses into the multigenerational privileges of our nation’s traditional elite.

RedBrownandBlue.com: Ruben also – justifiably in many instances – compares his experiences at Harvard in the 80s to that of Sotomayor’s tenure at Yale in the 70s, writing, “I have a good idea what she went through in college – and, later, at Yale Law School – because many Latinos who also traveled that road experienced the same thing.” What’s your take on those comparisons?

Ruiz: I think some of the points Navarrette makes about how he envisions being Latino in the Ivy League influenced Sotomayor are probably right on, but they are his projections or imaginings about her based on his experiences. I do think he may be underestimating the difference of having been there in the 70s like Sotomayor and the mid to late 80s like us. A lot changed in that time and I think Sotomayor’s generation was more of the pioneer, first wave generation. Also, their numbers were probably a lot smaller at that time and the affirmative action issue was a lot hotter and newer at the time.

RedBrownandBlue.com: Alienation tends to be a feeling many minorities get when they enter predominantly white college campuses and that’s only amplified if they come from a traditionally segregated community with a history of racial friction. Ruben addresses that in his column writing about how Sotomayor felt alienated and sought out other Puerto Rican students, eventually founding a Hispanic group on campus. Some might argue this pushes Hispanic students further into alienation and into the shadows of college life. Instead of pushing diversity it could contribute to clear lines separating student bodies by ethnicity or skin color. As someone who suddenly found themselves as minority, what was your reaction?

Ruiz: I would say that there are many ways people can react when they find themselves in that great, if challenging, position of being Latino or minority in the Ivy League. My reaction was to embrace diversity, including friends and colleagues from other minority groups, as well as from the majority group, from poor and wealthy backgrounds, from farms in Kansas and from international capitals like Taiwan and Mexico City. I saw first-hand the value that diversity brought in terms of range and depth of ideas and collaboration, perspectives and solutions to complex problems or issues. Ultimately, I was inspired by Harvard and then the Kennedy School to put my learnings and lifelong commitment to ongoing learning and growth to work for the betterment of not only minority communities but for the symbiotic progress of diverse communities both at home and abroad.

RedBrownandBlue.com: I also found a great similarity in that both of your high school classmates were quick to point out how affirmative action played a major role in your admittance to Harvard. He writes, “Word gets around your high school, and soon, people you thought were friends are in your face in calculus class. ‘If you hadn’t been Latino … you wouldn’t have gotten in,’ they helpfully point out. They’ve heard at the dinner table that, thanks to affirmative action, any Latino or African-American who can hold a pencil can get into any university they want. The story takes on an extra irony if you’re getting a better grade in calculus than your accusers.” Tell us about your experience.

Ruiz: I did encounter non-Hispanic people within my local high school community that were less qualified than me in respect to my grades, extracurricular activities and test scores. They accused me of having been accepted only because I was a minority. It was an eye-opener to how resentful and mean people could be, but it did not deter me, rather it only pushed me to always try harder and prove myself further, which is akin to one of the points Navarrette makes.

RedBrownandBlue.com: Speaking of non-Hispanics pulling the affirmative action card, Ruben also references the inscription entering and exiting the Harvard campus. “Enter to Grow in Wisdom.” “Depart to serve better, thy country and thy kind.” He writes, “I bet thin-skinned Senate Republicans would take exception and demand to know: “What do you mean, ‘thy kind?’ Is that code for picking on white males?” Ruben’s referencing the suddenly ridiculous “reverse racism” campaign Republican politicians have embarked on amidst Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” comment. What was your take on the Sotomayor hearings?

Ruiz: Ultimately, I have found the way many of the Senators treated Sotomayor during the hearings disrespectful of her experience and her capabilities, misdirecting of the public regarding the real issues and her real qualifications, and a reflection of their own profound lack of understanding of what it’s like to come up from nowhere as a minority and reach the level she has. But she has to bite her tongue and wait it out. That’s part of life trying to make it in America regardless of your race or ethnicity. You can’t let anger get the best of you…or you’ll be the one who loses not only your temper but your opportunities.

Rolando Rodriguez writes for CATALINA, a magazine that breaks stereotypes of Hispanics in the media and entertainment. In addition, Rolando is a producer for Red Brown and Blue, a nationally-syndicated, Spanish-language radio program. He is also Managing Director of Public Relations, Government Relations & Community Based-Outreach at Interlex Communications, one of the nation’s only advertising firms dedicated to socially conscientious multicultural marketing.

First Things First…

Written by Rudy Ruiz | July 22nd, 2009 | Comments (0)

  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • NewsVine
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

Dear President Obama:

I supported your candidacy and am proud that you are our President. But I’m very worried about your proposed healthcare reforms and their potentially negative impact on our faltering economy. I am hoping you may reconsider your approach to put first things first.

As a communications and media entrepreneur I co-founded and have grown a successful company over 15 years. Starting with nothing more than a concept, some talent and my education, today I employ over 30 people, provide them with healthcare in which my company shares the cost 50-50, generate revenues of over $40 million annually, pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes a year, and provide hundreds of thousands of additional dollars in pro-bono services and contributions to non-profit organizations. Throughout all of this, my family and I have always believed that we could “give” more, that we could pay more taxes for the greater good of our country if it would help us live up to our potential as a society and a nation. But today, facing the burden of increased taxation and costs on multiple fronts due to your proposed healthcare reform, I finally have to ask myself, “How much is too much?” And as an entrepreneur who studied economics at Harvard, I also have to wonder, “Before we spend more money and make more investments as a country, shouldn’t we turn our economy around first? Before we increase government budgets, shouldn’t we look to cut elsewhere first? As a prudent, strategic leader thinking systemically (which you promised you would), doesn’t it make sense to put “first things first?”

Let’s look at the our national economy like a large business. Our business is losing money. Many say it’s because our manufacturing base lost its competitive edge. Some have blamed it on the unions and the high cost of labor here compared to the low cost of labor in places like China and India. There are, however, sectors of our economy that are often seen as beacons of hope: the small business sector is one of these. However, as a small business creator and owner, I can assure you that burdening small businesses with additional overhead costs as your healthcare reform proposes is going to stifle competitiveness and growth. Many small businesses are struggling already without access to credit and capital amidst decreasing sales and cash flow during this recession. How can the federal government justify burdening them further with health insurance requirements? More fundamentally, in the country that has led the capitalist world and encouraged entrepreneurship by making it relatively easy to create businesses, wouldn’t these requirements severely curtail the freedom of entrepreneurship? What kind of message would such an action send to America and the world: that while the federal government bails out the billionaires of Wall Street, it punishes the small business owners toiling in their shadows? Wouldn’t it be sound economics to erase the deficit and get the engines of our success back on track, before we go shopping at the trillion dollar healthcare mall?

When trying to balance a budget, I’ve always looked at two ways to eliminate deficits: making more money and spending less money. The federal government should do both, but it should not confuse raising taxes for making more money. If our economy becomes more productive we could keep taxes even and still bring in more tax revenue.

Secondly, what about cutting costs as the flipside of the coin? There is a lot of vague talk about savings to be derived from overhauls of Medicaid and Medicare tied to this reform. But if those savings are so obvious why haven’t they been made already? I’d like more details or to at least see the savings being made somewhere in the government budget over a period of time before we commit to more expenditures. Furthermore, during your campaign you talked a lot about the daily squandering of millions of dollars with our wars abroad. Why not bring the troops home, cut military costs, turn the economy around, and then invest in healthcare?

I keep asking myself, why this approach and why now? What’s the rush given the dire economic circumstances? Why not take care of first things first?

Some pundits say it may be a matter of time. Former Congressional Staffer John Freehey writes for CNN.com that:

A new administration has a little less than a year to pass its big-ticket items, mostly because it is very hard to get major initiatives done in an election year.

So, maybe you’re feeling the pressure to get this big, promised healthcare reform off the ground. But you made that promise before our economy collapsed last Fall! I’m sure many of us out here still contributing to that economy might actually feel a bit more comfortable if you and Congress focused on fixing the economic mess first, before you ask us to pony up a trillion more dollars for a nationwide experiment with universal health coverage. First things first, Mr. President. You’ve been strategic and methodical you’re whole career, so please don’t let the ways of Washington change you when you went there to change them. Take your time. Don’t feel like you’re on some pre-ordained clock. If you can help us get the economy back on track, your political capital would grow rather than run out, and then healthcare reform might be more feasible and sustainable. Caring for our fellow Americans should definitely be a top priority but it’s a big and expensive dream, why not take solid, orderly steps in ramping up our ability to pay for it to become a reality?

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Rudy Ruiz.

Rudy Ruiz has been hailed as a cultural visionary. A published author and multicultural advocate, Ruiz is an acclaimed multicultural communications entrepreneur. He founded Red, Brown and Blue as well as Interlex, one of the nation’s leading advocacy marketing agencies ranked by Ad Age as one of the Top US Agencies across all disciplines. Prior to that, Ruiz earned his BA in Government at Harvard College and his Masters in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School.

Justice Should Be Color Blind, But People Aren’t.

Written by Rudy Ruiz | July 13th, 2009 | Comments (0)

  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • NewsVine
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court nomination brings a new sense of pride and possibility to the Bronx and the greater United States. Voto Latino interviewed Bronx Assemblyman Peter Rivera and Bronx locals to hear what they had to say about Sotomayor’s nomination.

The debate over President Obama’s selection of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court has incited many reactions. Opponents of programs designed to counter historic discrimination and prejudice claim that justice should be blind, seizing on Sotomayor’s ethnicity and past comments about the positive values of diversity to not only undermine her credibility but also to take a vicious swing at the kinds of policies that opened doors for her and other Hispanics and Blacks. This is an opportunistic and insidious endeavor, a clear attempt to leverage a truism about justice to undermine policies designed to engender equality. It’s a disingenuous threat that must be countered.

I agree that justice should be color blind, but people aren’t. Just the fact we have to say justice should be color blind implies that in our society, when we have allowed color to factor into our verdicts the results have been unfair. It’s a sad reality that has pervaded our history, dogs us today and is reflected in our society and economy. I agree that in the best of all worlds, in a utopia, race and ethnicity would not factor into decisions made by the courts, nor would they figure in deliberations by government agencies, schools, and corporations in awarding access to opportunities. But we don’t live in a utopia. Human beings must execute the laws and policies of our government. And last time I checked, human beings weren’t perfect. Human beings must make the final decisions. And human beings are driven not only by reason but also by emotion. Human beings still find comfort in familiarity and sense self-consciousness in the face of the different, whether it drives them to act negatively, justly or to overcompensate in a positive direction. The result of human racism over the centuries is that in America – although we have our first Black President – it is important to still note the following:

  • Obama is the first minority President in over 200 years in a land first inhabited by Native Americans and then built largely on the shoulders of slaves and immigrants.
  • Blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented in proportion to their population in practically every elected body in our nation, from Congress to the Boards of Fortune 500 companies.
  • Blacks and Hispanics, along with other minority groups, not only face discriminatory and predatory lending practices and higher foreclosure rates during the current mortgage crisis, but also exhibit enduring educational attainment gaps, income gaps, and health disparities.

The results of a history of racism and prejudice cannot be wiped out by one election. Color blindness cannot be achieved at the grassroots level simply because we have a few enlightened leaders and media pundits who would like us to believe it can be that easy. Those who would overturn race- and ethnicity-based policies designed to eliminate these types of gaps would also have us blindly believe we are living in a utopia.

The illusion of Paradise Found is treacherous and must be dispelled. Much of the racism and discrimination that minorities encounter today is not as overt as it was in the past, rendering it easier for those who either wittingly or unwittingly propagate it to argue that it doesn’t exist. There are no signs that bar us from using the same bathrooms. We don’t have to sit in the back of the bus. Instead, we face a more quiet, lingering form of racism and prejudice that will take generations to overcome. It is a de facto or subtle racism that does not necessarily result from outright racially motivated decision making, but rather from decisions driven by other emotions, interests and relationships that coincidentally tend to correlate with race and ethnicity. For example, lucrative government and corporate contracts, as well as admission to exclusive schools and organizations are often awarded to equally or less qualified individuals or companies simply because of familiarity, relationships, and insider access. These types of relationships are often non-existent within minority communities because we are only beginning to build elite and professional classes of our own. So, in lieu of those types of built-in advantages, race- and ethnicity-based policies that encourage decision makers to provide opportunities to qualified minorities and minority-owned businesses are designed to level the playing field. It may be an imperfect solution for an imperfect world, but it’s better than turning a blind eye on a persistent problem.

As the debate rages on until Judge Sotomayor is sworn in as the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice, it is important to speak up against opponents who would turn the race card against minority groups and interests. It’s a coy game they are playing. And while I do agree we should aspire to a world where decisions are made regardless of color or creed, I’m not naïve enough to believe that we’ve reached that utopia. I also am not naïve enough to believe that the path to racial equality will be hastened by eliminating the few, weak and complex initiatives designed to help us reach that very goal. I’d much rather toil to eliminate the blatant disparities between all groups. And when statistics show that we are all truly functioning as equal peers in this society, then by all means, let’s do away with the mechanisms designed to help us get there. Then instead of being color blind, perhaps both justice and society will be capable of seeing us all – in full color – as equals.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Rudy Ruiz.

Rudy Ruiz has been hailed as a cultural visionary. A published author and multicultural advocate, Ruiz is an acclaimed multicultural communications entrepreneur. He founded Red, Brown and Blue as well as Interlex, one of the nation’s leading advocacy marketing agencies ranked by Ad Age as one of the Top US Agencies across all disciplines. Prior to that, Ruiz earned his BA in Government at Harvard College and his Masters in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School.

Resources: To help protect the civil rights and advancements of multicultural communities, support MALDEF. Click here to learn how.

Visit Voto Latino to learn how to support President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court